On Mon 25/Jan/2021 21:07:01 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/25/21 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sun 24/Jan/2021 19:49:34 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
issue #99 needs to be addressed.
Won't we put a DKIM-Signature: in the http: header?
I don't know. That would need to be specified. To me it sounds like a good
reason to not try to specify http especially if there doesn't seem to be any
clear desire for it.
Yes, it needs a spec. It doesn't seem to be overly difficult.
If we put authentication at SHOULD, the missing spec is a good reason to skip
signing. Meanwhile we can try https:.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
